Except that there IS evidence that she actually did....
Correct. That's why I wrote this:
We do know that she did abuse her power (keeping prisoners in jail longer that they should have been to use for free labor, nearly allowing an innocent prisoner to be executed, etc)
I'm just saying that her speech isn't an admission of her misconduct. Quite the opposite: it's a denial and projection.
Saying that she learned that she could isn't an admission that she actually did it.
We do know that she did abuse her power (keeping prisoners in jail longer that they should have been to use for free labor, nearly allowing an innocent prisoner to be executed, etc), but she didn't admit to that in that speech.
If you listen to the quote in full context, Kamala Harris wasn't admitting to abusing her power as a D.A. She was saying that she knew how powerful she was and used that power to pull people up instead of beating them down, and that President Trump didn't know how to do that despite having much more power.
We all know she was lying, of course, but taking the clip out of context to make it look like a confession is still dishonest.
Here's the full context:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5130598/user-clip-kamala-harris-full-swipe-pen-speech
I agree. If you listen to the quote in full context, Kamala Harris wasn't admitting to abusing her power as a D.A. She was saying that she knew how powerful she was and used that power to pull people up instead of beating them down, and that President Trump didn't know how to do that despite having much more power.
We all know she was lying, of course, but taking the clip out of context to make it look like a confession is still dishonest.
Here's the full context:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5130598/user-clip-kamala-harris-full-swipe-pen-speech
Musk is 100% Tony Stark/Ironman
Before making the first Iron Man movie, Robert Downey, Jr. and Jon Favreau visited Elon Musk so they could get to know him and model the depiction of Tony Stark in the movie after him.
(what is he in the pic above?)
Cyborg, which also fits him due to his involvement in things like Neuralink.
I had RFK Jr as Bruce Banner/The Hulk - what is he above?
Aquaman. It fits quite well because he's an environmentalist, and a lot of modern versions of Aquaman have depicted him as an environmentalist (especially when it comes to ocean pollution).
Joseph Kennedy (the patriarch of the Kennedy clan; he was the father of Rosemary, RFK, JFK, and Ted) had her lobotomized without even telling his wife first.
Decades later in 1961, he wound up having a massive stroke that left him with severe brain damage. His wife thought it was divine retribution for what he had done to their daughter.
The really freaky thing is just how many brain-related things have happened to other Kennedys since. JFK got shot in the head and bits of his brain blown all over the place, one of the bullets that hit RFK got him in the brain, Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer, and this year, RFK Jr. announced that doctors discovered a dead worm in his head and told him that it had eaten part of his brain.
For anyone wondering what document they're reading, it's part of the January 6 Committee's interrogations. I was able to freeze-frame the video when the title of the document he was reading was visible, then run a web search for it. I then found the specific document. Here's the link:
It's part of the January 6 Committee's interrogations. Here's the link:
It's part of the January 6 Committee's interrogations.
Here's the link:
It's part of the January 6 Committee's interrogations. I was able to freeze-frame when the title of the document he was reading was visible, then run a web search for it. I then found the specific document. Here's the link:
I understand what you are saying but I think it is not quite right. It's sort of like a parent telling a child not to touch a hot stove. The rebellous child reaches up as fast as possible before the parent can stop him and touches the stove. The childs "plan" burns him. God has been telling us all along this is the way and the only way. All other ways lead to death.
Sometimes there's more to it than that; God Himself sometimes turns a plan against its maker (Haman is a prime example).
Psalm 9:15-16:
"The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken. The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands."
Proverbs 26:27:
"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him."
Esther 7:10:
"So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified."
Psalm 57:6:
"They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged a pit before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen themselves. Selah."
Proverbs 28:10:
"Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession."
So now Captain America is black. huh.
In "Avengers: Endgame", they had Captain America go back to the 1940s to retire, then, in his 90s, hand over his shield to Sam Wilson/The Falcon so that Sam could be the new Captain America.
They also had Sam become Captain America in the comics in 2015, and it flopped.
In a new leaked D23 teaser, there's a scene at the end in which President Ross (Harrison Ford) is nearly assassinated while making a speech at a podium outside. It bears an uncanny similarity to the Trump assassination attempt.
EDIT: The video was taken down at the link above, so here's a new link:
If I could see air coverage photos of Butler, PA on that day......
Are these useful?
https://twitter.com/reuterspictures/status/1814632746188210456
The following excerpt from an interview with Ralph Reed (a friend of President Trump and long-time lobbyist for Evangelical Christian policies) sheds a lot of light into what's going on:
Tina Nguyen: Let’s start with an easy, non-controversial topic. Voters have overwhelmingly turned out to enshrine abortion access in their state constitutions, and often cite a candidate’s position on the topic as a deciding factor in the voting booth. The issue will be on the ballots in swing states like Colorado and Florida in November. What do you make of the backlash to Dobbs?
Ralph Reed: On the 40th anniversary of Roe, Time magazine had that famous cover where they said the feminists won a historic victory with Roe v. Wade. The sub headline was “… and they’ve been losing ever since”—which was true. From the time of Roe until Dobbs, the feminists in the pro-abortion lobby did nothing but lose. And we began our long march through the institutions, through the courts, through Congress, through the presidency, and through state legislatures, and systematically restricted abortion and protected innocent human life. My greatest concern is that 40 years from now, somebody’s going to write a headline like that about us: that Dobbs was the greatest victory in the history of our movement—and then after that, all we did was lose. And so the question is, what do we do about that?
I think the answer is that we respond in the post-Dobbs environment exactly the way we did in the post-Roe environment, in the sense that it’s all about state legislative action. The Democrats are the real extremists here—and Joe Biden is the real extremist—because they’re for abortion on demand. You can debate when [life begins], but for all practical purposes, [they claim that it’s] at any stage of pregnancy, and they want to pay for it with tax dollars—which means repealing the Hyde Amendment, which Joe Biden supported for 42 years. If you do the polling on this, by the way, the majority of the American people are fine with restrictions, at the absolute latest, after the first trimester.
I guess it was in Hillary’s interview with The New York Times that created so much buzz, in which she said, “Our formula was always safe, legal, and rare.” Remember, Roe was based on a trimester system, and the argument was that after the first trimester, it was going to be possible to restrict, and therefore it would be very rare. And it would be legal, and therefore safe. And she said that her campaign advisors told her, “You can’t say ‘rare’ anymore.” That’s when the party transitioned to on-demand, making it paid for under Medicaid. It’s treated as if it’s a positive good.
Elective abortions paid for under Medicaid, which the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, has estimated to have led to as many as 300,000 additional abortions a year—if you do the polling on this, our position is a winning position. It’s where the majority of the American people are. They don’t want unlimited abortion, and they don’t want to pay for [it with] tax dollars. The problem is that in a campaign environment, that’s doing us very little good, because they’re able to run these ads saying, “So and so is for a federal ban on abortion.” And after that, you’re explaining, and when you’re explaining, you’re losing.
We just have to plow through this current environment. President Trump, who will be the nominee, is going to emphasize state legislative action. We should emphasize state legislative action. And neither the pro-choice nor the pro-abortion side is going to be able to pass any sweeping federal legislation anyway.
The pro-abortion movement is enjoying a short-term sugar high with these initiative and referendum victories, but eventually those will come to an end. Because there’s a limit to the number of states that have initiative and referendum [systems]. And then it’ll be our turn. We’ll go state by state and do what we did before Dobbs.
Tina Nguyen: That sugar high will drive Democrats and pro-choice Republicans out to vote in this election cycle, though. What are G.O.P. candidates saying to you about how they plan to navigate this environment?
Ralph Reed: First of all, this has been a highly organic process, worked out between candidates, campaign strategists, the party, the pro-life and pro-family movement, all working symbiotically and in a highly organic fashion to arrive at what to do. What you’re seeing is candidates saying either, “I don’t support a federal bill,” or if they don’t say that, they certainly say, “A federal bill isn’t going to move anytime soon.” Steve Daines said that, and he’s the chair of the Senatorial Committee. Mike Johnson has said that.
The second thing that they say is, “I support my state. I support my state’s legislation.” That’s what Rick Scott has said in Florida. He said, “I support the Florida legislation, but there’s not going to be any federal legislation.” And if you look at the polling, that’s where most voters are in terms of these initiatives. For candidates, I think you just say what Rubio, Rick Scott, Kari Lake, and others have said: This is abortion on demand, unlimited, at any stage of pregnancy. The good news is that in Florida they need 60 percent. I’m not saying they can’t get 60 percent, but I can tell you it’s going to be hard.
Tina Nguyen: You don’t think Trump loses trust among evangelicals by declining to back a national ban?
He is going to be given significantly more slack from the evangelical and pro-life voters because of everything that he did to deliver on the life issue as president. I have to be honest with you, I don’t know that anybody other than Trump would get that running room. He gets that forgiveness because he delivered and kept his promises on the courts, on defunding Planned Parenthood. He spoke to the March for Life. Would any other candidate be given that level of deference? I doubt it.